At 7:17 PM -0600 4/28/03, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Almost the only informed people who say that the current tools are
inaccurate in blocking too much or prone to being arbitrary are senders
of unsolicited bulk email. Most of the exceptions are people who have
Oh come on. Show me one single blacklist that has had false
positives on a regular basis. Spamhaus is good, but I've yet to find
a perfect one--not even MAPS.
Stop looking at the messenger and pay more attention to the message.
Now that Eudora Alpha has regexp filters I'm thinking of blocking
certain pairs of messages on this list. "If from A, and in reply to
B, move to trash." THh personality fights get ridiculous.
identifying tokens. Those tokens are the IP addresses of their SMTP
clients or sending machines. Those tokens and your domain names are
what we use to decide to reject or accept your spam for our own mailboxes
and the mailboxes of our clients.
Those tokens do not tell you the complaint level against the vendor
or the particular list.
Because of past performance, people running SMTP servers are unlikely
to accept the word of the ESPC or its members about "confirmed opt
in" or anything that might be called a performance rating. Besides,
Now I agree.
we already have mechanisms to rate the performance of bulk mail senders
including the ESPC members. That's why and how you are blacklisted.
It looks to me like they are aiming for finer grained control.
Is that good or bad? I'm not sure. But why don't we withhold
judgement until we have details.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg